Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffNoiseCollector Date: Nov 17, 2011 1:33pm
Forum: occupywallstreet Subject: Re: more numbers - How about TIME Magazine • Monday, June 24, 1974

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Global cooling?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dead-head_Monte Date: Nov 18, 2011 7:18am
Forum: occupywallstreet Subject: Re: more numbers - How about Climate Cranks posing as Skeptics?

Re: the paragraph you linked to from Time magazine, June 24, 1974.

I accept that you agree with the 2 or 3 percent who don't believe what 97 percent of The World's Scientists are saying about Global Warming and Climate Change. 97% of Climate Scientists today believe that man-made global-warming gases being emitted into our Earth's atmosphere are rapidly creating extreme weather events and disasters all around Our Planet. Let's move on, look ahead, and try and imagine what's in store for our futures.

• You (and most of the 2 or 3 percent) call yourselves "climate skeptics." This is a FALSE distinction. You're a climate crank. We just examined, discussed, and exposed Climate Cranks in my new OWS movie item about the Tar Sands Keystone XL oil pipeline. Please watch and listen to Tracks 8, 9, and 10. The case for you being a climate crank is made very strongly. Total running time for Tracks 8, 9, and 10 is about 21 minutes
disbelief_in_the_science_of_global_warming.jpg

Environmental journalist Mark Hertsgaard says, "[Here's] the problem. They [U.S. Senator James Inhofe, Fox News, U.S. Mainstream Media] are climate cranks. They like to be called "climate skeptics." And the media, I’m very sorry to say — the mainstream media, at least — calls them climate skeptics. They are not skeptics. Genuine skeptics are invaluable to science. That’s how science progresses, is with skepticism. But a true skeptic can be persuaded by evidence. They cannot. They have made up their minds for economic reasons or ideological reasons that they’re not going to believe in this. And because our country has allowed them to dominate the debate for 20 years, we’re now stuck with 50 more years of rising temperatures."
IPCC chief braced for storms of denial over extreme weather report
by George Black - part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 November 2011 04.53 EST
UN climate science panel chairman Rajendra Pachauri says he is ready for attacks from climate sceptics (Climate Cranks!) over the panel's new extreme weather report.

A major new report is due out today (Nov 18) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that will link an increase in extreme weather events and disasters to global warming. A few days before its release, I had the chance to sit down with Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC -- the man the climate skeptics love to hate.

The report is, to put it mildly, well-timed, after this year's freakish sequence of extreme weather events, from the unprecedented heatwave and drought in Texas to the horrendous floods in Bangkok, which have left 562 dead at the last count. Pachauri said he was quite ready to face a fresh onslaught from deniers and skeptics -- particularly the inevitable scoffing that there was no proof that any of these incidents could be laid at the door of climate change.

It would probably be much like 2009 and early 2010, he said, when the skeptics threw a series of hand grenades at the IPCC -- unfortunately to great political effect. They focused mainly on a slip-up in the IPCC's usually meticulous review process in its fourth periodic assessment report, issued in 2007, the subject being the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers. The report included an estimate that "if the present rate [of melting] continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high (IPCC-speak for 90 percent-plus likely) if the earth keeps warming at the current rate." This prediction came from a 1999 magazine interview with India's leading glaciologist, Syad Iqbal Hasnain, not an article in a peer-reviewed journal.

So, yes, a small lapse, and within 24 hours the IPCC had acknowledged it. But how significant was the error? It happened that I had interviewed Hasnain in New Delhi in 2009; he told me that he had slightly modified his projections on the basis of new data compiled over the intervening decade. What he said now was, "If the current trends continue, within 30 to 40 years most of the glaciers will melt out." It was hard to be more precise, he said, because so much of the affected region in India, Pakistan, and Tibet is off-limits to researchers for national security reasons. So most of the glaciers are very likely to be gone by 2040 to 2050, rather than all the glaciers are very likely to be gone by 2035.

If I were one of the 1.5 billion Asians whose future survival depends on meltwater from the Himalayas, I'm not sure I'd grasp the fine distinction.

The second assault was on the integrity of Pachauri himself, accusing him of a conflict of interest as a paid consultant for the likes of Deutsche Bank -- which may be the single most enlightened financial institution in the world on the subject of climate change. Pachauri's fees, in fact, went straight to renewable energy projects, such as the provision of solar lanterns and fuel-efficient cookstoves to villages that lack electricity, run by the New Delhi-based not-for-profit organization he also heads -- the Energy and Resource Institute (TERI).

t had obviously been a harrowing experience, one of Pachauri's senior associates told me, but he never lost his Olympian calm or his warm collegiality, turning out every weekend as usual -- at the age of 70 -- to play for TERI's redoubtable cricket team.

In the long run, Pachauri told me the whole "Himalayagate" affair had only strengthened the IPCC. "The processes we follow are our biggest strength," he told me. "We took the initiative with the U.N. Secretary General to review those processes, and it was gratifying that the independent review found our work solid and robust. But look, we've been around for 23 years now. You change with the times. There's always room for refinement. We know we're under constant intense scrutiny, and we change with the times -- which I think is to our credit." The new report on extreme weather, he added, would be a good illustration of that process of constant refinement.

Of course, he said, it's in the nature of extreme weather that no single event, no single incident, can be linked directly to global warming. Recall the controversy over Hurricane Katrina. Pachauri wasn't able to comment on the specifics of the report pre-publication, but his underlying message was clear. "As we said in the 2007 assessment report," he told me, "floods, droughts, and heatwaves will all increase. We abide by that, and we hope the world accepts it. We can never link a specific event, but the aggregate analysis is totally sound."

Most of the world will accept it. Those who won't, won't, he said. "Some find us inconvenient. We will always be opposed by vested interests, and if people still want to attack us, there's nothing we can do about it." With that, he apologized for not being able to continue the conversation: he had to join an important conference call with the vice-chairs of the IPCC -- no doubt, his press officer said, to review some last-minute questions about the upcoming report. Pachauri rose to shake hands in farewell, Olympian calm intact.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffNoiseCollector Date: Nov 18, 2011 2:56pm
Forum: occupywallstreet Subject: Re: more numbers - How about Climate Cranks posing as Skeptics?

Actually I stopped reading everything a long time ago and just find random links to post, what are we talking about here again?

(I'm like MSNBC, just not going to listen to anything I disagree with, make fun of it, act like a smug intellectual, etc)

Have a great weekend!